MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING PANEL Held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 6 MARCH 2012 at 10.00 A.M

MINUTES of MEETING of the PLANNING PANEL held in the COUNCIL CHAMBERS, VIEWFORTH, STIRLING on TUESDAY 6 MARCH 2012 at 10.00 a.m.

Present:

Councillor Graham REED (in the Chair)

Councillor Margaret BRISLEY Councillor Alasdair MacPHERSON Councillor David GOSS Councillor Andrew SIMPSON Councillor Graham LAMBIE (Substitute) Councillor Jim THOMSON

Also Present:

Councillor Colin O’Brien

In Attendance:

Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Elizabeth M Duncan, Chief Governance Officer, Governance & Resources Fiona Fulton, Communication’s Officer, Chief Executive’s Office Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Mark Laird, Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Jim McBrier, Waste Projects & Communications Team Leader, Environment Peter Morgan, Chief Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Neil Pirie, Roads Development Control Officer, Environment Maureen Bennison, Committee Support Officer, Governance & Resources Ann Dromgoole, Committee Officer, Governance & Resources (Clerk)

Also in attendance:

Neil Deasley – Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Paragraph PP 482 only) Alistair Milne – Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Paragraph PP 482 only) Michelle Hickson – Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Paragraph PP 482 only)

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Scott Farmer and Councillor Tony Ffinch.

Prior to commencement of the business the Chair reported that the Vice-Chair, Councillor Tony Ffinch, had undergone medical treatment and was making good progress.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC PP479 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

With reference to Standing Order No 33 (c)

The Chair and Councillor Graham Lambie both declared an interest in Item 8 on the agenda “Variation of Condition 1 of the Outline Planning Permission Reference 07/00824/OUT to extend the period for the submission of Reserved Matters to 18 March 2015 at Stirling Enterprise Park, Springbank Road, Stirling – Mr Gordon Bell – 12/00010/PPP”. Both Councillor Reed and Councillor Lambie were Directors of Stirling Enterprise Park Limited.

The Chair also confirmed that he would vacate the chair for this item.

Decision

The Panel agreed to appoint Councillor Margaret Brisley to take the Chair, for Item 8.

PP480 URGENT BUSINESS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE CHIAR

There was no Urgent Business.

PP481 MINUTES

Planning Panel – 7 February 2012

The Panel considered the Minutes of the Panel held on 7 February 2012.

Decision

The Panel approved the Minutes of Meeting of the Panel held on 7 February 2012 as a correct record of the proceedings.

Matters Arising –

Development Comprising Retail (Class 1), Financial Professional and Other Services (Class 2) and Food and Drink (Class 3) at Land and Buildings, Burghmuir Industrial Estate, Stirling – Stirling Development Agency Ltd – 11/00658/FUL – Paragraph PP478 refers

In response to a question the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that there had been no discussion to date with the Islamic Centre regarding their possible challenge to the validity of this Planning Panel decision. However, he understood that a meeting was scheduled to take place between representatives of the Islamic Centre and the Chief Executive and Head of Economy, Planning and Regulation to discuss this matter.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC PP482 FORMATION OF AN ACCESS VIA A NEW ROUNDABOUT, ERECTION OF A WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY COMPRISING A UNIT TO SORT PRE- APPROVED WASTES FOR RECYCLING OR REPROCESSING AND A PROCESSING PLANT GENERATING ENERGY FROM SUITABLE WASTES, AND PLANT SUITABLE FOR SUPPLYING STEAM OR HOT WATER GENERATED AS A BY-PRODUCT OF THE MAIN PROCESSES TO A POSSIBLE FUTURE DISTRICT HEATING SCHEME AT LAND ADJACENT TO WEST OF BANDEATH LODGE, THROSK - THE DIRECTORS OF POWERCROFTERS (SCOTLAND) LTD - 10/00215/PPP -

HEARING

The above Application was brought to the Panel under the requirements of Planning legislation since the Application was made, in part, by a Member of the Council, as Planning Authority.

Provost Fergus Wood is a Director of Power Crofters (Scotland) Limited – (the Applicant).

On 7 February 2012 the Panel agreed to continue determination of the Application pending a Site Visit and Hearing.

The Site Visit took place on 15 February 2012 at which the following Councillors were present:- Councillor Margaret Brisley; Councillor Scott Farmer; Councillor David Goss; Councillor Alasdair MacPherson; Councillor Graham Reed (Chair); Councillor Andrew Simpson and Councillor Jim Thomson. Councillor Violet Weir was also in attendance as a Member for Ward 7.

The report submitted to the Panel on 7 February 2012 was appended as Appendix B to a report by the Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012.

The report dated 27 February 2012 gave an updated Assessment on the Firth of Forth Site of Special Scientific Interest; Visual Impact; Need - The Zero Waste Plan for Scotland; and Decommissioning and Restoration as referred to in Paragraphs 3.6 – 3.9 respectively of the report.

Appendix B provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Development Plan Policy; (e) Assessment; (f) Objections and (g) Policy Resource Implications and Consultations.

The Note of the Site Visit was appended as Appendix C to the submitted report dated 27 February 2012.

The Chair reported that since the issue of the agenda for this meeting the following submissions were received and these were tabled at the meeting (a) Fax from McLean & Stewart, Solicitor, Dunblane on behalf of Mr & Mrs D Dick; (b) Submission from Friends of the Earth – Stirling and Supporting documents; (c) Petition from Liz McCulloch on behalf of residents of Throsk (121 signatures); (d) Submission from Mr McCulloch (Objector); (e) Petition from South Alloa Tenants and Residents Association (20 signatures); (f) Petition from Dunmore Village Association (26 signatures); and (g) Submission from Airth Parish Community Council (all tabled).

The Panel considered the Application under the procedure for allowing Interested Parties to be heard.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC The Chair welcomed all of the Parties to the Hearing and explained that the representatives from Scottish Environment Protection Agency were in attendance to answer questions, of a technical nature, from Panel Members.

Prior to discussion Councillor Alasdair MacPherson sought clarity on whether the Applicants had complied with procedures in terms of “Bad Neighbourhood Development” and whether the Council could be open to judicial review if found to be failing.

The Chair confirmed that following the presentation from the Principal Planning Officer the Panel would adjourn to consider the contents of the tabled submissions.

The Principal Planning Officer spoke to the submitted report.

Throsk Community Council and Polmaise Community Councils objected to the Application for the reasons stated in Paragraph 3.45 of Appendix B to the submitted report and these objections were also referred to in Paragraphs 4.8 and 4.21 respectively of Appendix B.

Twenty-five letters of comment were received. These included comments from South Alloa Tenants and Residents Association, Airth Parish Community Council, Friends of the Earth - Stirling, Dunmore Village Association, and the Leader of Falkirk Council, representing Carse, Kinnaird and Tryst Wards. A Petition containing 83 signatures was also submitted.

The objections and the responses to these objections were referred to in Paragraph 3.47 (a) – (z) of Appendix B to the submitted report.

Since the Panel meeting on 7 February 2012 Bruce Crawford MSP had registered his objection, on behalf of constituents who had contacted him. The grounds of his objection were “loss of amenity, and the impact of light into their community facility”.

The grounds of the objections, referred to in the 3 tabled Petitions, were that the proposed site is an entirely unsuitable location, the Plant should not be located at this proximity to housing/play areas and concerns regarding noise and disturbance, health and the greatly increased volume of heavy traffic.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (East) had commented at various stages throughout the Application process. On 14 December 2011 the Agency withdrew their objection and stated that their concerns relating to the proposal had now been addressed and they had no outstanding objections.

Scottish Natural Heritage objected to the Application unless the Conditions and mitigating measures listed in Paragraph 4.16 of Appendix B were applied to any consent granted.

Whilst Scottish Water did not object to the Application they were unable to reserve capacity at their Water and Wastewater Treatment Works in advance of formal agreement made with them.

The Team Leader, Bridge & Flood Maintenance recommended that the Condition referred to in Paragraph 4.9 of Appendix B be applied to the site.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC The responses from Falkirk Council Development Control Services were referred to in Paragraph 4.10 of Appendix B. These responses referred to issues regarding – a vacuum on the availability of data to justify the need for such a Facility in terms of Scottish Planning Policy; how much of the waste, proposed to be diverted from landfill, is currently disposed off to Forth Valley Landfill sites, the number of traffic movements to and from the site which would affect Airth and a comparison provided of the number of traffic movements expected from the earlier approval of 37 industrial units on the site.

Falkirk Council Transport Planning Unit requested that a 3m wide shared cycle/footpath should be provided along the development frontage to allow the development to tie into the National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 76 (Round the Forth) at Cowie Road.

Roads Development Control – Stirling Council had no objection to the Application provided the Conditions listed in Paragraph 4.11 of Appendix B were added to any consent granted.

All of the outstanding objections from Scottish Environment Protection Agency were addressed.

The Principal Planning Officer spoke to the report, referred to in the Section “Development Plan Policy” in Appendix B and confirmed that the site is designated in the Development Plan as a strategic employment site where uses falling within Use Classes 4, 5 and 6 (Business, General Industrial and Storage and Distribution) should be retained. As stated within the Zero Waste Plan and Scottish Planning Policy, industrial or storage and distribution sites are considered appropriate for the siting of Waste Management Installations.

The Panel was reminded that Scottish Planning Policy states that since operational control is regulated by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, consideration of Applications for planning permission relating to Waste Management Facilities should:

(a) Focus on whether the development itself is acceptable rather than on control of the processes or waste streams involved,

(b) Consider only the aspects of operations enforceable under planning control to minimise impacts on the environment, transport network and local communities, and

Scottish Natural Heritage had updated their initial response to include an assessment of the proposed development in relation to the Firth of Forth Site of Special Scientific Interest and confirmed that if Scottish Environment Protection Agency was content with any proposed discharges to air or water, then these interests should not be affected by the proposal. Therefore there should be no adverse effects on the integrity of the site of Special Scientific Interest or damage to the natural features of the site.

Waste Services had confirmed that with regard to Municipal Solid Waste there was currently no immediate benefit for the siting of an Energy from Waste Plant within the Stirling area and that such a Facility would be better sited adjacent to contracted material reclamation facilities.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC The Panel was recommended to Approve the Application subject to the Conditions and Reasons attached as Appendix 1 to Appendix B and the further Condition attached as Appendix A to the submitted report dated 27 February 2012.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency representatives explained the process of how the Agency’s Pollution Prevention and Control regime operated. The Application had first to be determined by the Planning Authority. The Agency needed information from the Developers on the type of waste that the Plant will process before the model for regulating emissions (the Pollution Prevention and Control Regime) could be put in place.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency did not have information on the types of waste; hazardous; non hazardous that would be processed at the Plant. The Agency did not require knowing where any of the bi-product wastes coming out of the Plant were to be dumped only that the wastes were delivered to a suitably licensed area. The Agency’s Pollution Prevention and Control Regime process was not concerned about carbon footprint. The Agency’s role concerned types of waste/amenity issues and, where appropriate, cross-site boundary.

Officers from the Agency were questioned on the transportation of wastes; effect of spillages; interruptions in the 24 hour operation of the Plant, due to breakdowns, what constituted a short term breach, how many breaches occurred at the few existing Plants already in operation; effects on communities/environment resultant from the operations; noise; emissions from the stack; odours; buffer zone; possible ground contamination, and effect on wildlife and fish.

In response to a question the Waste Projects & Communications Team Leader, Environment advised that Stirling Council’s current contract for the disposal of residual waste was with Avondale Environmental, Larbert. This contract included for the 'Primary' treatment of wastes via a Material Reclamation Facility to extract the maximum available resources from the wastes, prior to any further 'secondary' thermal treatments such as Energy From Waste. The contract could run up to August 2015, including extensions.

Thereafter, Stirling Council is mandated via Scotland's Zero Waste Plan to send any such residual wastes via a similar 'Primary' Treatment Material Reclamation Facility where they would be looking to recover and recycle in the region of 50% of the material, prior to further treatments. On this basis, Stirling Council could not directly engage with an Energy From Waste provider.

Once Stirling Council had established a contract with a 'Primary' Waste Treatment Provider, it would be for that Provider to engage with the marketplace to identify a 'secondary' Energy For Waste’ contractor (if required) in order to provide for the requirements of the Zero Waste Plan. The Zero Waste Plan requirements include the implementation of a landfill ban on biodegradable wastes by 2020 and a 5% restriction on the total volume of residual waste that are sent to landfill by 2025.

Accordingly, Stirling Council could not contract directly with the proposed Facility (under the terms of the Zero Waste Plan) that supported the intimation that such a site may have been more appropriately located adjacent to an existing Material Reclamation Facility in proximity terms.

At this juncture the Panel adjourned at 10.55 a.m. and reconvened at 11.15 a.m. with the same Officers and Members present.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC The Chief Governance Officer confirmed that it was competent for the Panel to determine the Application – the Council had complied with the procedures it was required to undertake regarding “Bad Neighbourhood Development”.

Mr Tom McDonald, Architect and Development Consultant, Edinburgh, Agent for the Developers spoke on their behalf. He stated that the Application was in principle and explained that work was in progress on the details of the Application that included addressing the issues of traffic, noise and play areas. He also explained the planning process.

Mr McDonald stated that the reference to the Plant undertaking incineration processes was inaccurate; although the Plant had the potential to undertake these works. The Developers had met all relevant Planning Guidance to operate within Government Guidelines and comply with Environmental Policies. The Application did not include details of the type of materials that would be reprocessed at the Plant; the types of materials to be reprocessed would be dependent on the contracts the Company won. The Developers could not indicate at this stage where the source of the waste products for processing would come from; nor the % of wastes that would be deemed toxic. The Agent advised that it was anticipated that the bulk of the wastes processed at the Plant would come from the Forth Valley area; it was not necessarily the case that waste would be transported from long distances; the site was situated in the middle of industrial Scotland. He further referred to a small amount of hazardous ash. In any event Scottish Environment Protection Agency would control the movements of the wastes.

Mr McDonald also stated that the Plant would achieve what had been achieved elsewhere in the UK and in Europe. He referred to an unnamed Plant (located somewhere within Europe) where the residents lived happily adjacent to it. The Agent confirmed that the proposed Plant would not use the same type of technology that operated at the Waste Processing site located near Dumfries. The reference to the presence of an artesian well on the Throsk site was inaccurate. The Developers did not anticipate issues regarding noise emissions. Mr McDonald suggested that ventilation noise would compare to the noise of a passing car.

Regarding play areas the Developers had offered to relocate the play area in Throsk or build a new one at their cost and relocate it. Regarding traffic issues the Developers had offered to provide a light controlled crossing. The Plant would employ 65 full time employees – working on a shift basis – and would operate 24 hours 7 days per week.

The Developers sought approval of the Application and were happy to accept Conditions.

Members expressed the view that the proposals for the Application reported by the Agent at this meeting were not those reported in the report before the Panel.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC Members sought clarity on - where waste would come from – (local, UK or external to the UK); would bringing waste to the proposed Plant contribute to carbon footprint reduction; the range of hazardous waste likely to be reprocessed at the Plant; the proportion of the waste to be processed for animal feeding; the close proximity of the site to Bandeath Lodge; the measures the Developer intended to put in place to prevent leakages at the site; proposed location of Sustainable Drainage System Ponds. Could a guarantee be given that there would be no pollutant/toxic emissions from the stack? Questions were also directed regarding air quality; the potential effect on wildlife, fish and water-course; discharges into the River Forth and whether processed waste, if reusable would be transported out of the Plant as raw material.

Mr Willie Liddell, Throsk Community Council, Mr Walter Attwood, Friends of the Earth, Stirling, and Mr Ian McCulloch, Dunblane spoke on behalf of the objectors.

Mr Liddell reiterated that Throsk Community Council’s, and residents’ objections still stood. The site was metres from residential housing and a play area and the Plant boundary fenced with Bandeath House.

Mr Liddell referred to a similar reprocessing Plant that operated outside Dumfries. There had been a catalogue of failures at this site e.g complaints regarding noise. Dangerous levels of mercury leakages were recorded at the Dumfries Plant in October 2010 - levels in excess of what was deemed safe for humans.

There was the possibility of mercury/dioxins leakage from the Throsk Plant and emissions being carried by the prevailing wind into play areas/homes. What would be the effect on Throsk village of similar breaches occurring at the Throsk Plant?

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s listed the Dumfries Plant amongst the 20 worst polluters.

Residents/objectors were aware that the Agency would monitor the Plant but monitoring would only take place once the Facility was operational – the Plant operations could affect public health. The increase in traffic, using the Plant, would impact on the residents of Throsk, Fallin and Plean. Mr Liddell referred to a Traffic Assessment undertaken by Friends of the Earth.

Mr Liddell reminded the Panel that the site was allocated for 37 light industrial units. The Planning Conditions attached to the use of these Units included business/general use. These Conditions did not however grant approval for general industrial use. A restriction on times of operation and the types of industrial use on the site had been put in place to safeguard the amenity of the local population. These units were also restricted to single storey height and a control placed on density/parking.

The existing Conditions for the site had now been brushed aside. The Application before the Panel did not include safeguards to protect the amenities of Kersie Road residents. The Plant would operate 24 hours/7 days per week. The height of the proposed stack to be built on the site was unknown. The composition of the waste emissions from the stack was unknown. The level of toxic waste to be re-processed at the Plant was also unknown. The visual image of this stack would not blend with the environment. Neither were safeguards in place regarding what pollutants would be emitted from the stack.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC The Petition from Throsk held 120 signatures against the development; the objectors were unhappy with the proposed location; no guarantees had been given regarding risk to public health. The proposed site was unsuitable.

Referring to the Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken Mr Attwood highlighted the lack of reference to the technology to be used in the operations at the Plant. This technology was the lynch pin behind the whole development. Therefore until detailed information on this technology was made known the Application should be rejected. Mr Attwood also stated that Friends of the Earth Scotland were not consulted on the Environment Impact Assessment. The reference to this Assessment should be disregarded. The Applicants had yet to produce a Transport Statement.

Mr McCulloch, objector, had a long personal connection with Throsk.

Mr McCulloch stated that the Application was for a major development that was unacceptable; the site location was unsuitable because of the size of the development, and impact on the amenity. The nature of the Facility was bulky and conspicuous because of the necessary size of the chimneystack and associated buildings.

Mr McCulloch referred to Paragraph 3.2 of Appendix B to the submitted report which stated that the present Application was for 60,000 tonnes; and referred the Panel to Page 1 of his tabled submission “Gasification – Residual Waste Treatment Technologies” in which it was stated that a stack height of a Plant treating approx 50,000 tonnes of waste may range from 30 – 70 metres.

The Recommendation attached to Application 08/00267/DET granted for the site, on 21 August 2008 included Conditions restricting (a) working hours and (b) height of future development. Approval was given for a development of low impact scale. The current Application could hardly be more different in character. The allocation of a site for industrial uses 4, 5, and 6 did not in itself qualify the site suitable for a major Waste to Energy development.

Mr McCulloch reminded the Panel that Planning Advice Note 63 gave advice on appropriate locations for new Waste Management Facilities. In relation to industrial areas it referred especially to those containing other heavy or specialised industrial uses. The Throsk site could not be described as such.

The proposed site had never been used for industrial processes but previously used for farming. Mr McCulloch produced evidence of how close Bandeath Lodge was to the site. He reiterated that Condition 10 for the previous Consent placed restrictions on the height of buildings and the category of industrial uses. Regarding Scottish Planning Policy 10 the Developers could not comply with the buffer zone.

Paragraph 3.31 of Appendix B to the submitted report - Scottish Planning Policy (SPP 10) - recommended consideration of a buffer zone of about 250 metres between sensitive receptors for gasification plant.

A buffer zone of 250 metres or nothing approaching it could be achieved at Throsk. The report from Economy, Planning & Regulation recognised that the plans as submitted, in principle, show an unacceptable large and visually intrusive development.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC Regarding the argument made that there was a lack of conclusive evidence as to whether this type of Facility was detrimental to human health Mr McCulloch referred to the “Precautionary Principles” set out in Policy SD 1 of Clackmannanshire & Stirling Structure Plan 2002 which supported the Precautionary Principle being applied “whenever the environmental implications of development are unclear, or inconclusive, but there is potential for irreversible environmental damage”.

Mr McCulloch urged the Panel to refuse the Application.

A representative from Airth Parish Community Council had also been invited to speak at the Hearing but was unable to attend.

Airth Parish Community Council’s objections formed part of the Hearing process and the written submission covered issues regarding -

Increase in Traffic; By-Product coming from a Plant that is an unnecessary addition to Stirling Waste Plan; Plant location; Effect on wildlife.

The essential objections to the Application received from Mr and Mrs David Dick were that the Development will have an adverse effect in relation to amenity, enjoyment, visual outlook and valuation depreciation in respect of their property at Mains of Throsk Farmhouse and Steading and Mains of Throsk Bungalow.

Prior to determining the Application the Chair referred to the final paragraph in Airth Parish Community Council’s submission. The Chair clarified that Provost Wood was not part of the Hearing process.

During discussion the following points were made:-

The Application dealt with a false premise; it was too premature to grant approval of the Application until an understanding of new technology on Waste Reprocessing was gained.

The issue for Scottish Environment Protection Agency regarding the information that the Applicants had submitted had been altered by what had been reported to this meeting.

The information on the Application that had been communicated to the community had been changed at the Planning stage – had valid public consultation taken place; public consultation was a formal part of the planning process.

The representative from Scottish Environment Agency commented that whilst it was not possible for the Agency to maintain their objection to the Application it was unhelpful that the community had been told something different; the Application before the Panel was a flexible generic application.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC MOTION

“To Refuse Application 10/00215/PPP on the grounds of valid planning objections i.e.

1 The proposed development is considered to be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, specifically paragraph 217 since neither of the buffer zone distances highlighted between sensitive receptors and the proposed facility are likely to be met as a consequence of the scale and location of the proposed site;

2 The Precautionary Principle cannot be assured and the precautionary approach in refusing planning permission on potential health impacts is justified in this instance;

3 It is considered that the Applicants have not adequately demonstrated that there would be no risk to human health as a result of the operation of the proposed development;

4 The proposed development, due to its 24 hour working and associated traffic would have a significant detrimental effect to the amenity and quality of life for the residents of Throsk.”

Moved by Councillor Margaret Brisley, seconded by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson.

Decision

The Panel unanimously agreed to Refuse Application 10/00215/PPP for the following reasons:-

2 The Precautionary Principle cannot be assured and the precautionary approach in refusing planning permission on potential health impacts is justified in this instance;

3 It is considered that the Applicants have not adequately demonstrated that there would be no risk to human health as a result of the operation of the proposed development;

4 The proposed development, due to its 24 hour working and associated traffic would have a significant detrimental effect to the amenity and quality of life for the residents of Throsk.

(Reference – Paragraph PP477 of 7 February 2012; Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012 (submitted); Fax from McLean & Stewart, Solicitor, Dunblane on behalf of Mr & Mrs D Dick; Submission from Friends of the Earth – Stirling and Supporting documents; Petition from Liz McCulloch on behalf of residents of Throsk; Submission from Mr McCulloch (Objector); Petition from South Alloa Tenants and Residents Association; Petition from Dunmore Village Association; Submission from Airth Parish Community Council (all tabled).

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC The Panel adjourned at 12.45 p.m. and reconvened at 1.00 p.m. with the following Members and Officers present:-

Councillor Graham REED (in the Chair)

Councillor Margaret BRISLEY Councillor Alasdair MacPHERSON Councillor David GOSS Councillor Andrew SIMPSON Councillor Graham LAMBIE (Substitute) Councillor Jim THOMSON

Also Present:

Councillor Colin O’Brien

In Attendance:

Jay Dawson, Principal Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Fiona Fulton, Communication’s Officer, Chief Executive’s Office Iain Jeffrey, Senior Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Mark Laird, Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Peter Morgan, Chief Planning Officer, Economy, Planning & Regulation Neil Pirie, Roads Development Control Officer, Environment Maureen Bennison, Committee Support Officer, Governance & Resources Ann Dromgoole, Committee Officer, Governance & Resources (Clerk)

PP483DEVELOPMENT OF 11 WIND TURBINES AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURES INCLUDING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND, SUB STATION AND CONTROL BUILDING, UNDERGROUND POWER CABLES, 2 PERMANENT ANEMOMETER MASTS, SITE ACCESS TRACKS, 5 WATER CROSSINGS AND UP TO 2 BORROW PITS AT LAND SOME 1.5KM NORTH WEST OF MUIRPARK FARM, STIRLING – SCOTTISH AND SOUTHERN ENERGY PLC - 09/00170/FUL

The above Application considered the proposal for the development of eleven wind turbines at Muirpark Farm, located to the northeast of the Craigengelt Wind Farm.

A report by the Head of Economy Planning & Regulation advised that the Application was contrary to the Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance on wind energy and due to its significance, should be considered by the Planning Panel.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC MOTION

“To continue determination of Application 09/00170/FUL for a site visit.”

Moved by Councillor Graham Reed, seconded by Councillor Alasdair MacPherson.

AMENDMENT

“To determine Application 09/00170/FUL at this meeting.”

Moved by Councillor Jim Thomson, seconded by Councillor Margaret Brisley.

The vote on the Amendment was as follows:-

For the Amendment (2) Councillor Margaret Brisley Councillor Jim Thomson

Against the Amendment (5) Councillor Graham Lambie Councillor David Goss Councillor Alasdair MacPherson Councillor Graham Reed Councillor Andrew Simpson

The vote for the Motion was as follows:-

For the Motion (5) Councillor Graham Lambie Councillor David Goss Councillor Alasdair MacPherson Councillor Graham Reed Councillor Andrew Simpson

Against the Motion (2) Councillor Margaret Brisley Councillor Jim Thomson

Decision

The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 2 votes and accordingly the Panel agreed to continue determination of the Application pending a Site Visit.

(Reference – Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012 submitted.)

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC Councillor Graham Lambie took no part in the determination of the undernoted Applications but intimated that he wished to speak as a Local Member for Forth & Endrick Ward.

PP484 LAND ADJACENT TO EAST OF BALAUCHAN LODGE, MUGDOCK ROAD, STRATHBLANE – SCOTIA HOUSE LTD -

The Panel agreed that Application 11/00509/PPP, Application 11/00547/PPP and Application 11/00549/PPP be considered at the same time since all of the Applications were in respect of the same site.

Application 11/00509/PPP (Plot 1), Application 11/00547/PPP (Plot 2) and Application 11/00549/PPP (Plot 3) were referred to the Panel at the request of Councillor Alistair Berrill for the following reasons:-

“It is understood the current Application (and the related two other Applications) have been designed to address the reasons for the Reporter dismissing the Applicant’s previous Appeal. Therefore these raise another test case for the Council’s practice for its Green Belt and Countryside Policies which ought to be discussed and determined in public”.

The Planning Officer spoke to the three Applications.

The Panel was advised that The Reporter in the Appeal Decision Notice (Reference PPA-390-2001, paragraph 21) considered that the previous Application (Reference 09/00394/FUL) involving the erection of five dwelling houses would not compromise these strategic aims and objectives.

Regarding the current Application(s), it was accepted that when assessing the proposals in isolation, the proposals would not result in coalescence.

It was however considered that the development scheme would constitute sprawl into the Countryside by virtue of the fact that the proposal would allow, in principle, the erection of dwelling houses on previously undeveloped green field land.

The Planning Officer advised that allowing this type of development without reasonable justification in Planning Policy terms would make it very difficult for the Council to refuse similar Applications in future. If permitted, such development could result in the kind of sprawl and ‘urbanisation’ of the green belt that the Council’s Policies were seeking to control. The 3 Applications before the Panel should therefore be resisted. This view was considered to be consistent with provisions of Scottish Planning Policy relating to Green Belts within which it was stated “the cumulative erosion of a green belt’s integrity through the granting of individual planning permission should be avoided”.

The Panel was asked to note however, for the purpose of assessment, that the Applicant’s submission(s) was centred principally on Policy ENV4 of the Clackmannanshire and Structure Plan 2002 in an attempt to justify the development proposal and address the concerns of the Reporter referred to in the Appeal Decision Notice (Reference PPA-390-2001, paragraph 28).

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC An additional submission from the Planning Administrator, Strathblane Community Council, was tabled at the meeting. This submission referred to the Community Council’s comments that were incorporated in the Planning Officer’s submitted report. The Planning Administrator confirmed that the Community Council had submitted sound reasons for refusal of the Applications.

Referring to Councillor Berrill’s reasons for calling in the Application(s) the Planning Administrator in the further submission advised that these reasons raise another test case for the Council's practice for its Green Belt and Countryside Policies, which ought to be discussed and determined in public.

Strathblane Community Council hoped that this 'test case' will be used to reinforce and confirm the Council's clear and established policies. Even if the worst aesthetics of the previous proposal were softened, the new proposals were still very far from meeting the criteria for development in the Green Belt.

For the Panel to accept the Applicant's logic for granting Approval would render the Green Belt designation meaningless, as any well-designed development would be permitted.

Strathblane Community Council hoped the Panel would support the Planning Officer's analysis and refuse all of the Applications without the need for a Hearing.

The Panel was advised that the Community Council would request a Hearing in the event that the Panel found itself uncertain or inclined to allow the Applications.

Councillor Graham Lambie spoke against the 3 Applications and stated that basically what was before the Panel was the same Application as the 2009 Application minus 2 houses. There were no circumstances where the Council’s current Policies allowed this development.

(a) Proposed Development of One New Dwelling in Principle on Plot 1 – Application 11/00509/PPP

A report by the Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Development Plan Policy; (e) Assessment; (f) Objections; and (g) Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

Twenty-four representations on the Application were received. The grounds of the objections were listed in Paragraphs 3.49 (a) – (i) of the submitted report.

Roads Development Control had no objection to the Application subject to the Condition referred to in Paragraph 4.6 of the submitted report being added to any Consent granted.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse the Application for the reasons stated in Paragraph 2.1 (a) – (e) of the submitted report.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC Decision

The Panel agreed to Refuse Application 11/00509/PPP for the following reasons:

(a) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan 2002 Policies ENV3 and ENV4 as the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficiently exceptional circumstances in order to overcome the presumption against approach to development in the green belt. The development proposals are not deemed to represent an enhancement and as such the application is considered contrary to the objective requirements of the green belt.

(b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy E16 of the Stirling Council Local Plan As Altered, which operates a presumption against any development not essential for agriculture or forestry (except appropriate recreation and tourism projects dependent upon a countryside location) when proposed in a Green Belt. The development proposal is not required in connection with these rural economic activities and as such is contrary to Policy E16.

(c) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the development proposal is contrary to Policy H6 of the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan, Approved 2002, since it has not been demonstrated that the applicant has an essential need to be housed to manage land in the vicinity for agriculture, horticulture, forestry or an established rural business.

(d) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy H10 of the Stirling Council Local Plan (As Altered) 2007 as the applicant has failed to demonstrate a genuine need to be housed to manage land in the vicinity for agriculture, horticulture or forestry or for the management of an established rural business where there is a clear operational need to be housed in the vicinity.

(e) In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is not in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of Policy H10A: Housing in the Countryside. Subcategory 7: Development in the Green Belt, allows new housing in the countryside in the circumstances covered in categories 3(a), 4(ai), 4(aiii), 4b and 5a only (ie principally in cases involving redundant buildings), where proposals are considered capable of achieving a net environmental gain and other Green Belt objectives are not compromised.

(Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 28 February 2012 submitted.)

(b) Proposed Development of One New Dwelling in Principle on Plot 2 – Application 11/00547/PPP

Paragraph 3.49 (a) – (i) of the report incorporated the comments from the Twenty- four representations received on the Application.

Strathblane Community Council’s objections and submission on the Application were listed in Paragraph 4.8 of the report.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC Roads Development Control had no objection to the Application subject to the Condition referred to in Paragraph 4.6 of the submitted report being added to any Consent granted.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse Application 11/00547/PPP for the Reasons stated in Paragraph 2.1 (a) – (e) of the submitted report.

Decision

The Panel agreed to Refuse Application 11/00547/PPP for the following reasons:

(b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy E16 of the Stirling Council Local Plan as Altered which operates a presumption against any development not essential for agriculture or forestry (except appropriate recreation and tourism projects dependent upon a countryside location) when proposed in a Green Belt. The development proposal is not required in connection with these rural economic activities and as such is contrary to Policy E16.

(e) In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposed development is not in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of Policy H10A: Housing in the Countryside. Subcategory 7: Development in the Green Belt, allows new housing in the countryside in the circumstances covered in categories 3(a), 4(ai), 4(aiii), 4b and 5a only (i.e. principally in cases involving redundant buildings), where proposals are considered capable of achieving a net environmental gain and other Green Belt objectives are not compromised.

(Reference - Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012 submitted.)

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC Twenty-four representations were made on the Application and comments on the objections were listed in Paragraph 3.49 (a) – (i) of the submitted report.

Strathblane Community Council’s objections and submission on the Application were listed in Paragraph 4.8 of the report.

Roads Development Control had no objection to the Application subject to the Condition referred to in Paragraph 4.6 of the submitted report being added to any Consent granted.

The Panel was recommended to Refuse Application 11/00548/PPP for the Reasons stated in Paragraph 2.1 (a) – (e) of the submitted report.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC

Decision

The Panel agreed to Refuse Application 11/00548/PPP for the following reasons:

(b) In the opinion of the Planning Authority, the proposed development is contrary to Policy E16 of the Stirling Council Local Plan As Altered which operates a presumption against any development not essential for agriculture or forestry except appropriate recreation and tourism projects dependent upon a countryside location) when proposed in a Green Belt. The development proposal is not required in connection with these rural economic activities and as such is contrary to Policy E16.

(Reference - Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 28 February 2012 submitted.)

At this juncture Councillor Graham Reed vacated the Chair and Councillor Margaret Brisley took the Chair.

Councillor Graham Lambie and Councillor Graham Reed left the meeting Chamber.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC PP485 VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 OF THE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 07/00824/OUT TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR THE SUBMISSION OF RESERVED MATTERS TO 18 MARCH 2015 AT STIRLING ENTERPRISE PARK, SPRINGBANK ROAD, STIRLING - MR GORDON BELL - 12/00010/PPP

The above Application was brought to the Panel since the Council had a financial interest in the land.

On 18 March 2009 Outline Planning permission for Application 07/00824/OUT was originally granted for a Class 1 Convenience Superstore. Planning permission for this Application expired on 18 March 2012.

A report by the Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation provided details of (a) The Site; (b) The Proposal; (c) Previous History; (d) Development Plan Policy; (e) Assessment; (f) Objections and (g) Policy/Resource Implications and Consultations.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that Application 12/00010/PPP was made under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which makes provision for the determination of Applications to develop land without complying with a Condition attached to a previous permission.

The Condition in question required any matters reserved (which in this case would have been the detailed drawings) to be submitted within three years of the date of grant of the then Outline planning permission.

The Panel was recommended to Approve Planning Application 12/00010/PPP subject to the Conditions in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.

Decision

The Panel agreed to Approve Planning Application 12/00010/PPP subject to the Conditions in Appendix 1 to the submitted report.

(Reference – Report by Head of Economy, Planning & Regulation dated 27 February 2012 submitted.)

The Chair declared the meeting closed at 1.20 p.m.

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\PLANNING PANEL\MINUTES\2012\PP20120306.DOC